A Few Technologies ?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

A Few Technologies ?

A Few Technologies ?

I was noticing how the Technological Economy is really based on the discovery and use of only a handful of technologies that then lend themselves to constant improvements and refinements and such. Like Silicon Technology in Electronics and Integrated circuits and Microprocessors or the Internal Combustion Engine, or Jet Airlines, etc. These are fixed technologies that have become better and better and more refined (but Silicon Technology and Integrated circuits is a truly Free Lunch (Moore's Law), we went from 5,000 transistor Microprocessors in 1975 to 3 billion transistor Mircroprocessors in 2011), as if in reality, you can only discover a few breakthrough technologies and then nothing more and you can only keep on refining what you discovered.

So the expectation of always new game breaking technologies is unreal and not possible: Nature just gives us a few free lunches and powerful technologies with which to refine constantly: we probably will never find the breakthrough Battery Technology or Fusion Energy Technology: what could happen is that the constant refinement of one technology may compensate the non discovery of all of the others, like a super Virtual Reality may compensate never having found Fusion technology or Light Speed Space technology and such.

And then Matter itself may only allow certain paths to be taken according to how the Observer is designed and prohibit other paths for that same Observer design: a modifed Man Brain Body (aka an Alien) that deals with completely different constraints and environments may develop an associated technology to achieve all it wants as it may be a configuration of Matter that does not prohibit it from visiting certain new configrations of matter that are an enabling technology for the alien...
nameta9
Philosopher

Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: A Few Technologies ?

The entire idea of "OUT INNOVATING" or "OUT EDUCATING" the "competition" (who ? Germany ? JAPAN ? South Korea ?) so as to create "new sectors" and new "jobs" is based on two false premises: one that Novelties, High Tech Companies and New Services can create all of these new fangled jobs and two that even when and if they create them, they can create them by the hundreds of thousands.

First, since there are only a handful of really game changing new technologies available, and it is simply not realistically possible to create and invent completely new sector creating and industry creating technologies every ten years (like Automobiles were, or Jet Airlines were or Computers and Software and Internet were, etc.) we have to exploit the technologies that we have, until something else "really new" comes along to create "really new industries", and exploiting the technologies we already have means optimizing, perfecting them and using less labor to activate and use them in the end, as we become more expert and precise in "cutting waste and excess manipulations (hence jobs) to use and apply technologies" (think mergers and acquisitions and economies of scale, etc.). So in the meanwhile jobs are being cut and fewer new ones are being created in place of them, and the relationship is essentially for every ten jobs cut by technology you may gain maybe three new jobs in "other sectors" (notice Odumbo and others never specifically state what sectors, what concrete activities, what jobs etc. they like to remain vague and abstract like innovation and education never specifically saying what is needed, since they don't know and nobody knows and it is just an excuse to make believe that "somehow and in some way the jobs will be there", etc.).

And even when jobs are created by Innovation and Education only a few are created since the very idea of Information Workers is to use the huge economies of scale that top notch Information Workers and Innovators and High Tech Specialist can produce: point in case to design the IPHONE you maybe need at most 1,000 top notch Information Workers but to produce them in China you use hundreds of thousands "Low level and low paying" (250 dollars a month pay against maybe at least 3,000 dollars a month to the Information workers ?) workers in all the component and such factories.

So that is the deal, you can only give out Free Salaries to all and cheap rents. Amen.

Also, other examples of game changing technologies were Skyscrapers since in the last 120 years they became another standardized technology used all over the world, creating ever greater numbers of them with ever more floors, etc. Another technology that gets perfected and applied and optimized continually. Also Genetic Engineering creating new drugs and such, another game changing technology but here progress is slower because it deals with quirky biological material which is hard to predict and control...
nameta9
Philosopher

Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: A Few Technologies ?

There is also the "hard Work" theory where the idea is that if only everyone would work harder and harder more and more work would appear and be created and such. If only managers and enterprises would keep on inventing new projects and new goals ever changing you can create an infinite amount of work, etc. Maybe, maybe not as Man is the Infinitely Programmable Machine so anything goes and anything can go, etc. The theory doesn't take into account a few constraints: resources are limited, the Technological Economy optimizes and automates work out of existence, Profits must be made, you just can't invent and force any project and goal since the enterprise performing the work must make a profit and someone must be willing to evaluate and pay for it accordingly, etc., people and skill sets are limited, sometimes hard to find and People are Lazy so to say, etc.

Anyways, another limit and problem to all is that for many tasks, an enterprise may need a Specialized Information Worker only for a short amount of time and only to solve one specific problem and then not anymore, so that worker would have his work cut out for him for only a month or six months or such. And maybe that kind of specialization is needed only very occasionally and only in very specific sectors and for specific tasks and projects. But in order to become that specialized the worker must invest maybe a few years and money to get educated accordingly: so you have another contorted situation where the specialization requires a much higher investment than the amount of time that kind of work is performed in the future and the amount of money that can be asked for it. Anyways, the present Technological Economy is too complex and with too many contrasting forces to really have any real general solution to its problems. One thing I am sure of is that Work is Becoming Obsolete, there will be less and less work in the future no matter what. Even because the very definition of Information Worker - Services - Tertiary means one who "works smart", works with Information and this has nothing at all to do with "Hard Work" or even "Time at Work" as in "More Time at Work Means More Production and More Result", nay, it is the exact opposite, the Services and Information Economy and Innovation and "More Education Myth" means mostly a little smart work that generates huge economies of scale and huge amplifications, go figure.

But anything can be assigned anything, it doesn't matter, Man will invent anything and any fake causes and effects and rules just because, so all of the above may be 100 % wrong. Amen.
nameta9
Philosopher

Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: A Few Technologies ?

From:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6395 ... chnologies

View PostIronMan79, on 7 February 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:
I was noticing how the Technological Economy is really based on the discovery and use of only a handful of technologies that then lend themselves to constant improvements and refinements and such. Like Silicon Technology in Electronics and Integrated circuits and Microprocessors or the Internal Combustion Engine, or Jet Airlines, etc.

You are focussing only on end-consumer technology. You are (for example) forgetting the technologies used in industry...

Chemical processes in general have gone through a non-stop evolution of getting new, more efficient, cleaner, and better products. Multi-billion euro worth discoveries are common there. Take for example the strong fibre technologies like kevlar. Or take the composite material technologies. Or look at the gas cleaning technologies which make our cities liveable again. Or the drinking water technologies which means that water doesn't taste like chlorine anymore. Maybe you don't notice those, because you are neither their supplier or their consumer. But these things definitely affect the average guy on the street. I could extend this list into hundreds of examples, each worth billions.

View PostIronMan79, on 9 February 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:
Anyways, another limit and problem to all is that for many tasks, an enterprise may need a Specialized Information Worker only for a short amount of time and only to solve one specific problem and then not anymore, so that worker would have his work cut out for him for only a month or six months or such. And maybe that kind of specialization is needed only very occasionally and only in very specific sectors and for specific tasks and projects. But in order to become that specialized the worker must invest maybe a few years and money to get educated accordingly: so you have another contorted situation where the specialization requires a much higher investment than the amount of time that kind of work is performed in the future and the amount of money that can be asked for it.

Yes, some jobs are becoming obsolete. So what?
New specializations are emerging. And it's just a matter of getting proper education.

I don't know in which economic hell hole you're living, but where I am (Netherlands), there is a shortage of scientists and engineers. You are talking about the technical world? And you're suggesting that technical people will be out of a job? In fact, it's the exact opposite. There is a shortage of scientists and engineers in this country. We import brains.

If companies require someone's expertise for only a few months, then that job will be outsourced. It's completely normal - in fact, even common - to temporarily hire some engineer to fix a problem. There are companies which are like a "Rent-an-Engineer".

View PostIronMan79, on 7 February 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:
[...]so all of the above may be 100 % wrong.

That's the first thing I agree with in your posts.

"Yes, some jobs are becoming obsolete. So what?
New specializations are emerging. And it's just a matter of getting proper education."

Which ? Be specific. Do you need a thousand new Chemical Engineers ? a thousand new Composite Material Engineers ? A thousand new Water Processing Engineers ? So then what ? that only makes 3,000 Engineers hired (for 8 hours a day for years on end ? and making at least 2,000 dollars a month ?). But the USA and the EU and JAPAN have millions of unemployed: ok, I got it, they are stupid, aren't educated enough, didn't learn the very last top notch skills where they are looking for hundreds of Engineers, and most of all they are all Lazy Bumbs, and so blame the Victim.

Look, I agree, there are many things, and many sectors and many kinds of jobs, but the way it is set up today, with millions of unemployed looking for jobs and entire continents (China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and others) robbing work from the first world, I have a hard time buying into your mostly "dominating Right wing ideology" whee it is always the workers fault...

Code: Select all
You're just ranting, aren't you? This is just one giant complaint, which, I guess, comes from some huge disappointment. I'm guessing you lost your job?Don't blame the technology sector. Blame the financial sector for this crisis.

Ever since I was a kid I have always heard of this myth of we need more scientists and engineers, etc. And in fact I became one (sort of), and have worked in technical environments, etc. The myth was also due to strong investments in Military technology and Space programs and such but I am now mostly convinced that something else is going on: this myth acts as justification to keep people out of work, to not distribute money, to always put the blame in something that is wrong with the "workers", etc.

Of course there are other forces at play: cultural forces in that an environment of "hard work" ( ? an iffy concept today...) and research fosters dedication and ambition and so filters out many types of people that don't exactly abide to certain models (think South Korea and how their strong investments in Technology has achieved them so much status - they have cornered the worldwide flat screen TV market and smart phone market) or even because they are not smart enough, educated enough, too lazy or whatever. So you have environments where you must fit in and abide pretty narrowly, and this may be the case of certain technical environments and corporations (but of course every situation is different and it is hard to generalize).

But the Technological Economy, by definition will always, by structure, kill more jobs than create them and even when they do create them and if they do, they will create fewer jobs than the ones killed and those fewer jobs will be harder to do because you have to be a very competitive and top notch Chemical Engineer or Process Engineer or whatever.

SO kill 1,000 factory worker jobs and create 200 top notch jobs: and another thing, the very fact that the jobs created are Education Based, Information Workers based, Innovation based means they are available worldwide, information and people can flow freely between continents, so you are competing against millions of potential top notch technicians educated in often completely different environments (South Korean Engineers studied 12 hours a day and such (if it is true?)) and with different (stricter) rules from a lot of places in the USA or EU (JAPAN is the competitor in this case ?).

Anyways, my solution is Free Salaries to all and Cheap Rents to all, check out all of my posts nameta9 on http://www.ilovephilosophy.com, you will learn the absolute and total truth in time...

An example:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=177908
nameta9
Philosopher

Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: A Few Technologies ?

From:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6395 ... hnologies/

If that is the goal of your posts, I see no more reason to discuss. "

"I don't know in which economic hell hole you're living, but where I am (Netherlands), there is a shortage of scientists and engineers."

Take your choice, there is no shortage of "Economic Hell Holes". Near to your home there are a few: Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Portugal... towards the east Ukraine, parts of Russia, Pakistan, towards the South most of Northern Africa, in the Americas, parts of the USA, parts of Mexico...

you get the idea...

They should all become Engineers and Scientists, that is the problem (or immigrate to the Netherlands).

Hey, Vlad, you're right the white countries are the winners, it is all about race after all....
nameta9
Philosopher

Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: A Few Technologies ?

Sorry, nameta, I didn't read your conversation with yourself and I'm only adding this as an aside. I worked with the engineer who developed the first transistor (which hasn't been in use for decades.) He kept it in his desk, in a specially designed, foam padded, metal box. It's manufacturing serial number was something like, "00001.00." When he showed it to me, I was over-awed.

I also worked with Don Bateman, the engineer who invented the navigational system that tells pilots when they're approaching land masses in inclement weather that prevents them from 'seeing' approaching land masses. We called it the "Pull up" system.

I've also worked with--never mind. This is an aside, is all.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher

Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest